Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Federal government and the states were never intended to control private firearm ownership. In fact it was supposed to be none of their business in anyway. Hence.... shall not be infringed
Oddly though...there are Federal laws concerning machine guns and canons
When the 2nd amendment reads Organized Militia, by tradition and wordage, it means the State Controlled Militia not a bunch of dudes wearing pickle suits and waving a bunch of guns while running around the woods.
That doesn't make a lot of sense. So you're saying that before the Bill of Rights was passed, the government was afraid that they wouldn't be allowed to arm the military- so they asked for a constitutional amendment to guarantee that?
There has been no government in history which banned itself from being armed.
Cannons are not small arms, and they are Legal if you get an ffl license...Federal government and the states were never intended to control private firearm ownership. In fact it was supposed to be none of their business in anyway. Hence.... shall not be infringed
Oddly though...there are Federal laws concerning machine guns and canons
I won't bother taking all that nonsense apart. I'll simply point this outI'm not a legal expert or a credentialed constitutional scholar. However, regardless of how you want to spin the Bill of Rights to justify your extremist position, the FACT is that having millions of law abiders walking around with handguns and long guns is great as it leads to more order. Bad actors know not to try and stick someone up, because their octogenarian victim might turn the tables on them and give them an express ticket to Judgment Day.
Let's take a look at the 2nd amendment line by line.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
This means that the well regulated Militia is formed by the state to guard against the forming of the tyranny of the Federal Government. The problem with this is, as late as 1898, Governors were using their Organized Militia as bully boys to support their Rich Cronies business ventures. In 1898, that happened here. And throughout the history this was done over and over. The intent was good but the application was often times not. But that doesn't change a thing. The intent was the same for the original formation. But due to the Spanish American War, the first part of the National Guard Act was passed but no one really took it seriously. It was tightened up a bit more in 1908. But due to the War Department finally coming to the realization that the original 75,000 strong Army could no longer apply ever again, the law of the National Guard Act of 1917 was passed and it still stands today. All of a sudden, the States had no Organized Militia anymore. And even if they did form a separate State Militia (the name was changed to SDF to get around the new Militia laws) the State could not afford to equip and train their SDF people to the level that the Feds could the National Guard or the Regulars. The intent of the first line of the second amendment became lost. The Feds did take control of it but it was gleefully relinquished by each and every state. The States could have blocked it just by standing together. But with WWI coming on the States were scared shitless. The clause was telling the Feds what they could not do but the States allowed it to happen anyway.
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
People break these two apart. We shouldn't. It's really all one thought. The Rights of the People (or the State) to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. The Federals cannot infringe on the rights of the State when it comes to firearms. Yes, according to this even the 1934 Firearms Act might be deemed illegal unless it's done under the guise of Public Safety and not under Gun Control which is something entirely different. That should be up for debate at state levels, not Federal Levels. I doubt if the Feds could legally do anything to a State that decides to disregard the 1934 Firearms act in the Supreme Court or any Federal Court unless they can prove that the original intent of the Firearms act was Public Safety. It might be an interesting case. Certainly much more deserving than what is usually tried to argue lately on firearms. The second half of the 2nd amendment is telling the Feds that they cannot infringe on the States Firearms Rights and this includes all people in the State.
While the first half is out of date, the second half is not and stands as it is written. And it must be taken in it's intended purpose by our Founding Fathers and the Bill of Rights.
"This means that the well regulated Militia is formed by the state to guard against the forming of the tyranny of the Federal Government. The problem with this is, as late as 1898, Governors were using their Organized Militia as bully boys to support their Rich Cronies business ventures. In 1898, that happened here. "
So the Constitution gives as one of the purposes and duties of a "Well Regulated Militia" that of putting DOWN insurrections...you acknowledge this and point out several contemporaneous uses (Shay's and the Whiskey Rebellion). But somehow this means the opposite of what it says and how it was used?
You really need to go sit in the corner
The constitution does not at all detail the purpose, need, etc., of militias.
ALL the federal constitution would have jurisdiction over or need to point out would be the rare emergency when the federal government would need and be able to draw on the militias.
That is NOT at all the main point of the militias.
And being able to put down immoral insurrections does not at all imply all insurrections are immoral or should be put down.
Clearly the founders implemented a good insurrection and were VERY fond of the ability to commit insurrections.
They would NEVER have at all implied anything that would prevent needed insurrections, and in fact verbally and in writing said they though insurrections would likely be necessary on a semi regular basis.
And NO, militias are NOT formed by the states alone. They are individual, local, and state. Most militias were private.
Clearly the 2nd amendment implies it is the PEOPLE themselves who form well regulated militias, not states.
The original intent was for the State to control the Militias and the total of all of the Militias to outnumber the total number of Federal Troops allowed by law. Each state did not have to have a larger number but the combined number of all the states had to be a larger number than the legal Federal troops. The Federal Troops were limited to 75,000 for many decades. With the Indian Wars taking up so many of that Federal Total, this gave the Confederates a decided advantage at first. Had it not been for the States Militias being called up, the Confederates would have marched in and taken DC. In those days, it was traditional when you took the other guys capital city the war ended much like taking Richmond ended the Civil War the other direction.
When the 2nd amendment reads Organized Militia, by tradition and wordage, it means the State Controlled Militia not a bunch of dudes wearing pickle suits and waving a bunch of guns while running around the woods.
The 2nd Amendment does not read as mentioning the Organized Militia, but instead mentions that to have a well practiced militia, you need "the people" to be armed already.
It specifically does not mention the Organized Militia, and instead only "the people".
Federal government and the states were never intended to control private firearm ownership. In fact it was supposed to be none of their business in anyway. Hence.... shall not be infringedYou are not reading it in the context of the eraI won't bother taking all that nonsense apart. I'll simply point this out
"This means that the well regulated Militia is formed by the state to guard against the forming of the tyranny of the Federal Government. The problem with this is, as late as 1898, Governors were using their Organized Militia as bully boys to support their Rich Cronies business ventures. In 1898, that happened here. "
So the Constitution gives as one of the purposes and duties of a "Well Regulated Militia" that of putting DOWN insurrections...you acknowledge this and point out several contemporaneous uses (Shay's and the Whiskey Rebellion). But somehow this means the opposite of what it says and how it was used?
You really need to go sit in the corner
The constitution does not at all detail the purpose, need, etc., of militias.
ALL the federal constitution would have jurisdiction over or need to point out would be the rare emergency when the federal government would need and be able to draw on the militias.
That is NOT at all the main point of the militias.
And being able to put down immoral insurrections does not at all imply all insurrections are immoral or should be put down.
Clearly the founders implemented a good insurrection and were VERY fond of the ability to commit insurrections.
They would NEVER have at all implied anything that would prevent needed insurrections, and in fact verbally and in writing said they though insurrections would likely be necessary on a semi regular basis.
And NO, militias are NOT formed by the states alone. They are individual, local, and state. Most militias were private.
Clearly the 2nd amendment implies it is the PEOPLE themselves who form well regulated militias, not states.
The original intent was for the State to control the Militias and the total of all of the Militias to outnumber the total number of Federal Troops allowed by law. Each state did not have to have a larger number but the combined number of all the states had to be a larger number than the legal Federal troops. The Federal Troops were limited to 75,000 for many decades. With the Indian Wars taking up so many of that Federal Total, this gave the Confederates a decided advantage at first. Had it not been for the States Militias being called up, the Confederates would have marched in and taken DC. In those days, it was traditional when you took the other guys capital city the war ended much like taking Richmond ended the Civil War the other direction.
When the 2nd amendment reads Organized Militia, by tradition and wordage, it means the State Controlled Militia not a bunch of dudes wearing pickle suits and waving a bunch of guns while running around the woods.
I am reading it EXACTLY in context for the Era. The little private armies running around in the woods were never intended to try and overthrow the Governments. The Protections in that context was left to the States, not the individual. It still is.
Cannons are not small arms, and they are Legal if you get an ffl license...Federal government and the states were never intended to control private firearm ownership. In fact it was supposed to be none of their business in anyway. Hence.... shall not be infringed
Oddly though...there are Federal laws concerning machine guns and canons
By Peter Weber
That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.
"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
I'm not a legal expert or a credentialed constitutional scholar. However, regardless of how you want to spin the Bill of Rights to justify your extremist position, the FACT is that having millions of law abiders walking around with handguns and long guns is great as it leads to more order. Bad actors know not to try and stick someone up, because their octogenarian victim might turn the tables on them and give them an express ticket to Judgment Day.
You need to learn from history. Bad Actors like John Wesley Harding, right?
As for John Wesley Harding:
{...
He was well known for wildly exaggerating or completely making up stories about his life. He claimed credit for many murders that cannot be corroborated.[4]:10–11
Within a year of his release in 1894, Hardin was killed by John Selman in an El Paso saloon.
...}
So he was taken care of by armed civilians, not the government.
Yes, and this wanton killing is why Dallas had the no firearms in the city limit streets and businesses and would have tried and convicted him for murder under the same cirumstances. Same goes more many other western towns.
Something can be said when there are too few guns in the innocents hands but there are volumes when there are too many. Even today, in El Paso, you can't have a weapon in a Bar.
Cannons are not small arms, and they are Legal if you get an ffl license...Federal government and the states were never intended to control private firearm ownership. In fact it was supposed to be none of their business in anyway. Hence.... shall not be infringed
Oddly though...there are Federal laws concerning machine guns and canons
In most areas, even if you have a FFL for a piece of artillery, the local government will not allow you to have possession of it.
I'm not a legal expert or a credentialed constitutional scholar. However, regardless of how you want to spin the Bill of Rights to justify your extremist position, the FACT is that having millions of law abiders walking around with handguns and long guns is great as it leads to more order. Bad actors know not to try and stick someone up, because their octogenarian victim might turn the tables on them and give them an express ticket to Judgment Day.
You need to learn from history. Bad Actors like John Wesley Harding, right?
As for John Wesley Harding:
{...
He was well known for wildly exaggerating or completely making up stories about his life. He claimed credit for many murders that cannot be corroborated.[4]:10–11
Within a year of his release in 1894, Hardin was killed by John Selman in an El Paso saloon.
...}
So he was taken care of by armed civilians, not the government.
Yes, and this wanton killing is why Dallas had the no firearms in the city limit streets and businesses and would have tried and convicted him for murder under the same cirumstances. Same goes more many other western towns.
Something can be said when there are too few guns in the innocents hands but there are volumes when there are too many. Even today, in El Paso, you can't have a weapon in a Bar.
I can find no specific references to Dallas, but clearly until 1900, the SCOTUS consistently ruled that city bans on firearms were entirely illegal, including concealed weapons.
I find no exceptions. The Earps in Deadwood were only temporarily confiscating while visiters were drinking.
List of firearm court cases in the United States - Wikipedia
{...
Bliss v. Commonwealth[edit]
Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822, Ky.)[12] addressed the right to bear arms pursuant to Art. 10, Sec. 23 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799):[13] "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned." This was interpreted to include the right to carry a concealed sword in a cane. Bliss has been described as about "a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons [that] was violative of the Second Amendment."[14] Others, however, have seen no conflict with the Second Amendment by the Commonwealth of Kentucky's statute under consideration in Bliss since "The Kentucky law was aimed at concealed weapons. No one saw any conflict with the Second Amendment. As a matter of fact, most of the few people who considered the question at all believed amendments to the U.S. Constitution did not apply to state laws."[15]
Bliss stated, "But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution."[12] The "constitution" mentioned in this quote refers to Kentucky's Constitution.[16]
The case prompted outrage in the Kentucky House, all the while recognizing that Section 23 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799) did guarantee individuals the right to bear arms. The Blissruling, to the extent that it dealt with concealed weapons, was overturned by constitutional amendment with Section 26 in Kentucky's Third Constitution (1850) banning the future carrying of concealed weapons, while still asserting that the bearing of arms in defense of themselves and the state was an individual and collective right in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. This recognition, has remained to the present day in the Commonwealth of Kentucky's Fourth Constitution enacted in 1891, in Section 1, Article 7, that guarantees "The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons." As noted in the Northern Kentucky Law Review Second Amendment Symposium: Rights in Conflict in the 1980s, vol. 10, no. 1, 1982, p. 155, "The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."[17][18]
The importance of Bliss is also seen from the defense subsequently given against a murder charge in Kentucky against Mattews Ward, who in 1852 pulled out a concealed pistol and fatally wounded his brother's teacher over an accusation regarding eating chestnuts in class. Ward's defense team consisted of eighteen lawyers, including U.S. Senator John Crittenden, former Governor of Kentucky, and former United States Attorney General. The defense successfully defended Ward in 1854 through an assertion that "a man has a right to carry arms; I am aware of nothing in the laws of God or man, prohibiting it. The Constitution of Kentucky and our Bill of Rights guarantee it. The Legislature once passed an act forbidding it, but it was decided unconstitutional, and overruled by our highest tribunal, the Court of Appeals." As noted by Cornell, "Ward's lawyers took advantage of the doctrine advanced in Bliss and wrapped their client's action under the banner of a constitutional right to bear arms. Ward was acquitted."
...}
I'm not a legal expert or a credentialed constitutional scholar. However, regardless of how you want to spin the Bill of Rights to justify your extremist position, the FACT is that having millions of law abiders walking around with handguns and long guns is great as it leads to more order. Bad actors know not to try and stick someone up, because their octogenarian victim might turn the tables on them and give them an express ticket to Judgment Day.
You need to learn from history. Bad Actors like John Wesley Harding, right?
As for John Wesley Harding:
{...
He was well known for wildly exaggerating or completely making up stories about his life. He claimed credit for many murders that cannot be corroborated.[4]:10–11
Within a year of his release in 1894, Hardin was killed by John Selman in an El Paso saloon.
...}
So he was taken care of by armed civilians, not the government.
Yes, and this wanton killing is why Dallas had the no firearms in the city limit streets and businesses and would have tried and convicted him for murder under the same cirumstances. Same goes more many other western towns.
Something can be said when there are too few guns in the innocents hands but there are volumes when there are too many. Even today, in El Paso, you can't have a weapon in a Bar.
I can find no specific references to Dallas, but clearly until 1900, the SCOTUS consistently ruled that city bans on firearms were entirely illegal, including concealed weapons.
I find no exceptions. The Earps in Deadwood were only temporarily confiscating while visiters were drinking.
List of firearm court cases in the United States - Wikipedia
{...
Bliss v. Commonwealth[edit]
Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822, Ky.)[12] addressed the right to bear arms pursuant to Art. 10, Sec. 23 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799):[13] "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned." This was interpreted to include the right to carry a concealed sword in a cane. Bliss has been described as about "a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons [that] was violative of the Second Amendment."[14] Others, however, have seen no conflict with the Second Amendment by the Commonwealth of Kentucky's statute under consideration in Bliss since "The Kentucky law was aimed at concealed weapons. No one saw any conflict with the Second Amendment. As a matter of fact, most of the few people who considered the question at all believed amendments to the U.S. Constitution did not apply to state laws."[15]
Bliss stated, "But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution."[12] The "constitution" mentioned in this quote refers to Kentucky's Constitution.[16]
The case prompted outrage in the Kentucky House, all the while recognizing that Section 23 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799) did guarantee individuals the right to bear arms. The Blissruling, to the extent that it dealt with concealed weapons, was overturned by constitutional amendment with Section 26 in Kentucky's Third Constitution (1850) banning the future carrying of concealed weapons, while still asserting that the bearing of arms in defense of themselves and the state was an individual and collective right in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. This recognition, has remained to the present day in the Commonwealth of Kentucky's Fourth Constitution enacted in 1891, in Section 1, Article 7, that guarantees "The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons." As noted in the Northern Kentucky Law Review Second Amendment Symposium: Rights in Conflict in the 1980s, vol. 10, no. 1, 1982, p. 155, "The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."[17][18]
The importance of Bliss is also seen from the defense subsequently given against a murder charge in Kentucky against Mattews Ward, who in 1852 pulled out a concealed pistol and fatally wounded his brother's teacher over an accusation regarding eating chestnuts in class. Ward's defense team consisted of eighteen lawyers, including U.S. Senator John Crittenden, former Governor of Kentucky, and former United States Attorney General. The defense successfully defended Ward in 1854 through an assertion that "a man has a right to carry arms; I am aware of nothing in the laws of God or man, prohibiting it. The Constitution of Kentucky and our Bill of Rights guarantee it. The Legislature once passed an act forbidding it, but it was decided unconstitutional, and overruled by our highest tribunal, the Court of Appeals." As noted by Cornell, "Ward's lawyers took advantage of the doctrine advanced in Bliss and wrapped their client's action under the banner of a constitutional right to bear arms. Ward was acquitted."
...}
Cannons are not small arms, and they are Legal if you get an ffl license...Federal government and the states were never intended to control private firearm ownership. In fact it was supposed to be none of their business in anyway. Hence.... shall not be infringed
Oddly though...there are Federal laws concerning machine guns and canons
In most areas, even if you have a FFL for a piece of artillery, the local government will not allow you to have possession of it.
But legally they have to have a process where by you can have possession if it can be shown to not infringe upon the rights of others.
No arbitrary regulation can ever be legal and if any government employee can possess something, then so can any private individual if they can show identical need and safeguards.
I'm not a legal expert or a credentialed constitutional scholar. However, regardless of how you want to spin the Bill of Rights to justify your extremist position, the FACT is that having millions of law abiders walking around with handguns and long guns is great as it leads to more order. Bad actors know not to try and stick someone up, because their octogenarian victim might turn the tables on them and give them an express ticket to Judgment Day.
You need to learn from history. Bad Actors like John Wesley Harding, right?
As for John Wesley Harding:
{...
He was well known for wildly exaggerating or completely making up stories about his life. He claimed credit for many murders that cannot be corroborated.[4]:10–11
Within a year of his release in 1894, Hardin was killed by John Selman in an El Paso saloon.
...}
So he was taken care of by armed civilians, not the government.
Yes, and this wanton killing is why Dallas had the no firearms in the city limit streets and businesses and would have tried and convicted him for murder under the same cirumstances. Same goes more many other western towns.
Something can be said when there are too few guns in the innocents hands but there are volumes when there are too many. Even today, in El Paso, you can't have a weapon in a Bar.
I can find no specific references to Dallas, but clearly until 1900, the SCOTUS consistently ruled that city bans on firearms were entirely illegal, including concealed weapons.
I find no exceptions. The Earps in Deadwood were only temporarily confiscating while visiters were drinking.
List of firearm court cases in the United States - Wikipedia
{...
Bliss v. Commonwealth[edit]
Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822, Ky.)[12] addressed the right to bear arms pursuant to Art. 10, Sec. 23 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799):[13] "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned." This was interpreted to include the right to carry a concealed sword in a cane. Bliss has been described as about "a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons [that] was violative of the Second Amendment."[14] Others, however, have seen no conflict with the Second Amendment by the Commonwealth of Kentucky's statute under consideration in Bliss since "The Kentucky law was aimed at concealed weapons. No one saw any conflict with the Second Amendment. As a matter of fact, most of the few people who considered the question at all believed amendments to the U.S. Constitution did not apply to state laws."[15]
Bliss stated, "But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution."[12] The "constitution" mentioned in this quote refers to Kentucky's Constitution.[16]
The case prompted outrage in the Kentucky House, all the while recognizing that Section 23 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799) did guarantee individuals the right to bear arms. The Blissruling, to the extent that it dealt with concealed weapons, was overturned by constitutional amendment with Section 26 in Kentucky's Third Constitution (1850) banning the future carrying of concealed weapons, while still asserting that the bearing of arms in defense of themselves and the state was an individual and collective right in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. This recognition, has remained to the present day in the Commonwealth of Kentucky's Fourth Constitution enacted in 1891, in Section 1, Article 7, that guarantees "The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons." As noted in the Northern Kentucky Law Review Second Amendment Symposium: Rights in Conflict in the 1980s, vol. 10, no. 1, 1982, p. 155, "The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."[17][18]
The importance of Bliss is also seen from the defense subsequently given against a murder charge in Kentucky against Mattews Ward, who in 1852 pulled out a concealed pistol and fatally wounded his brother's teacher over an accusation regarding eating chestnuts in class. Ward's defense team consisted of eighteen lawyers, including U.S. Senator John Crittenden, former Governor of Kentucky, and former United States Attorney General. The defense successfully defended Ward in 1854 through an assertion that "a man has a right to carry arms; I am aware of nothing in the laws of God or man, prohibiting it. The Constitution of Kentucky and our Bill of Rights guarantee it. The Legislature once passed an act forbidding it, but it was decided unconstitutional, and overruled by our highest tribunal, the Court of Appeals." As noted by Cornell, "Ward's lawyers took advantage of the doctrine advanced in Bliss and wrapped their client's action under the banner of a constitutional right to bear arms. Ward was acquitted."
...}
And gun control in Tombstone didn't work....as the maimed Earp, and the dead Earp show...
I'm not a legal expert or a credentialed constitutional scholar. However, regardless of how you want to spin the Bill of Rights to justify your extremist position, the FACT is that having millions of law abiders walking around with handguns and long guns is great as it leads to more order. Bad actors know not to try and stick someone up, because their octogenarian victim might turn the tables on them and give them an express ticket to Judgment Day.
You need to learn from history. Bad Actors like John Wesley Harding, right?
As for John Wesley Harding:
{...
He was well known for wildly exaggerating or completely making up stories about his life. He claimed credit for many murders that cannot be corroborated.[4]:10–11
Within a year of his release in 1894, Hardin was killed by John Selman in an El Paso saloon.
...}
So he was taken care of by armed civilians, not the government.
Yes, and this wanton killing is why Dallas had the no firearms in the city limit streets and businesses and would have tried and convicted him for murder under the same cirumstances. Same goes more many other western towns.
Something can be said when there are too few guns in the innocents hands but there are volumes when there are too many. Even today, in El Paso, you can't have a weapon in a Bar.
I can find no specific references to Dallas, but clearly until 1900, the SCOTUS consistently ruled that city bans on firearms were entirely illegal, including concealed weapons.
I find no exceptions. The Earps in Deadwood were only temporarily confiscating while visiters were drinking.
List of firearm court cases in the United States - Wikipedia
{...
Bliss v. Commonwealth[edit]
Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822, Ky.)[12] addressed the right to bear arms pursuant to Art. 10, Sec. 23 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799):[13] "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned." This was interpreted to include the right to carry a concealed sword in a cane. Bliss has been described as about "a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons [that] was violative of the Second Amendment."[14] Others, however, have seen no conflict with the Second Amendment by the Commonwealth of Kentucky's statute under consideration in Bliss since "The Kentucky law was aimed at concealed weapons. No one saw any conflict with the Second Amendment. As a matter of fact, most of the few people who considered the question at all believed amendments to the U.S. Constitution did not apply to state laws."[15]
Bliss stated, "But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution."[12] The "constitution" mentioned in this quote refers to Kentucky's Constitution.[16]
The case prompted outrage in the Kentucky House, all the while recognizing that Section 23 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799) did guarantee individuals the right to bear arms. The Blissruling, to the extent that it dealt with concealed weapons, was overturned by constitutional amendment with Section 26 in Kentucky's Third Constitution (1850) banning the future carrying of concealed weapons, while still asserting that the bearing of arms in defense of themselves and the state was an individual and collective right in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. This recognition, has remained to the present day in the Commonwealth of Kentucky's Fourth Constitution enacted in 1891, in Section 1, Article 7, that guarantees "The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons." As noted in the Northern Kentucky Law Review Second Amendment Symposium: Rights in Conflict in the 1980s, vol. 10, no. 1, 1982, p. 155, "The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."[17][18]
The importance of Bliss is also seen from the defense subsequently given against a murder charge in Kentucky against Mattews Ward, who in 1852 pulled out a concealed pistol and fatally wounded his brother's teacher over an accusation regarding eating chestnuts in class. Ward's defense team consisted of eighteen lawyers, including U.S. Senator John Crittenden, former Governor of Kentucky, and former United States Attorney General. The defense successfully defended Ward in 1854 through an assertion that "a man has a right to carry arms; I am aware of nothing in the laws of God or man, prohibiting it. The Constitution of Kentucky and our Bill of Rights guarantee it. The Legislature once passed an act forbidding it, but it was decided unconstitutional, and overruled by our highest tribunal, the Court of Appeals." As noted by Cornell, "Ward's lawyers took advantage of the doctrine advanced in Bliss and wrapped their client's action under the banner of a constitutional right to bear arms. Ward was acquitted."
...}
You will note that these were all prior to 1871 when the western towns started requiring everyone entering the towns to check their weapons either at the Marshals or Sheriffs Office or with the Bartender. The Earps were nicer than most. They asked nicely at first. In Dallas during the same time period, you were told once. The next time the Marshal saw you armed, he just gunned you down with no warning. "Why did you shoot him in the Back?........Because his front wasn't towards me.".
Cannons are not small arms, and they are Legal if you get an ffl license...Federal government and the states were never intended to control private firearm ownership. In fact it was supposed to be none of their business in anyway. Hence.... shall not be infringed
Oddly though...there are Federal laws concerning machine guns and canons
In most areas, even if you have a FFL for a piece of artillery, the local government will not allow you to have possession of it.
But legally they have to have a process where by you can have possession if it can be shown to not infringe upon the rights of others.
No arbitrary regulation can ever be legal and if any government employee can possess something, then so can any private individual if they can show identical need and safeguards.
Noper. Boston has already been taken to court over it's AR-15 ban and it stuck. And you can cry about it all you want but if your local guv decides that extenuous weapons are not allowed then they aren't allowed, period. Again, upheld in Federal Courts. It's legal as long as Due Process has been used.
You need to learn from history. Bad Actors like John Wesley Harding, right?
As for John Wesley Harding:
{...
He was well known for wildly exaggerating or completely making up stories about his life. He claimed credit for many murders that cannot be corroborated.[4]:10–11
Within a year of his release in 1894, Hardin was killed by John Selman in an El Paso saloon.
...}
So he was taken care of by armed civilians, not the government.
Yes, and this wanton killing is why Dallas had the no firearms in the city limit streets and businesses and would have tried and convicted him for murder under the same cirumstances. Same goes more many other western towns.
Something can be said when there are too few guns in the innocents hands but there are volumes when there are too many. Even today, in El Paso, you can't have a weapon in a Bar.
I can find no specific references to Dallas, but clearly until 1900, the SCOTUS consistently ruled that city bans on firearms were entirely illegal, including concealed weapons.
I find no exceptions. The Earps in Deadwood were only temporarily confiscating while visiters were drinking.
List of firearm court cases in the United States - Wikipedia
{...
Bliss v. Commonwealth[edit]
Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822, Ky.)[12] addressed the right to bear arms pursuant to Art. 10, Sec. 23 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799):[13] "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned." This was interpreted to include the right to carry a concealed sword in a cane. Bliss has been described as about "a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons [that] was violative of the Second Amendment."[14] Others, however, have seen no conflict with the Second Amendment by the Commonwealth of Kentucky's statute under consideration in Bliss since "The Kentucky law was aimed at concealed weapons. No one saw any conflict with the Second Amendment. As a matter of fact, most of the few people who considered the question at all believed amendments to the U.S. Constitution did not apply to state laws."[15]
Bliss stated, "But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution."[12] The "constitution" mentioned in this quote refers to Kentucky's Constitution.[16]
The case prompted outrage in the Kentucky House, all the while recognizing that Section 23 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799) did guarantee individuals the right to bear arms. The Blissruling, to the extent that it dealt with concealed weapons, was overturned by constitutional amendment with Section 26 in Kentucky's Third Constitution (1850) banning the future carrying of concealed weapons, while still asserting that the bearing of arms in defense of themselves and the state was an individual and collective right in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. This recognition, has remained to the present day in the Commonwealth of Kentucky's Fourth Constitution enacted in 1891, in Section 1, Article 7, that guarantees "The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons." As noted in the Northern Kentucky Law Review Second Amendment Symposium: Rights in Conflict in the 1980s, vol. 10, no. 1, 1982, p. 155, "The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."[17][18]
The importance of Bliss is also seen from the defense subsequently given against a murder charge in Kentucky against Mattews Ward, who in 1852 pulled out a concealed pistol and fatally wounded his brother's teacher over an accusation regarding eating chestnuts in class. Ward's defense team consisted of eighteen lawyers, including U.S. Senator John Crittenden, former Governor of Kentucky, and former United States Attorney General. The defense successfully defended Ward in 1854 through an assertion that "a man has a right to carry arms; I am aware of nothing in the laws of God or man, prohibiting it. The Constitution of Kentucky and our Bill of Rights guarantee it. The Legislature once passed an act forbidding it, but it was decided unconstitutional, and overruled by our highest tribunal, the Court of Appeals." As noted by Cornell, "Ward's lawyers took advantage of the doctrine advanced in Bliss and wrapped their client's action under the banner of a constitutional right to bear arms. Ward was acquitted."
...}
And gun control in Tombstone didn't work....as the maimed Earp, and the dead Earp show...
I would say it worked pretty damned well. It would have worked much better if the Earps had adopted the Dallas Marshal's approach and just gunned them down with no warning. But the Earps may have been killers but they weren't cold blooded killers. You are sticking up for outlaws, you know that.
Cannons are not small arms, and they are Legal if you get an ffl license...Oddly though...there are Federal laws concerning machine guns and canons
In most areas, even if you have a FFL for a piece of artillery, the local government will not allow you to have possession of it.
But legally they have to have a process where by you can have possession if it can be shown to not infringe upon the rights of others.
No arbitrary regulation can ever be legal and if any government employee can possess something, then so can any private individual if they can show identical need and safeguards.
Noper. Boston has already been taken to court over it's AR-15 ban and it stuck. And you can cry about it all you want but if your local guv decides that extenuous weapons are not allowed then they aren't allowed, period. Again, upheld in Federal Courts. It's legal as long as Due Process has been used.
No, only 1 federal judge went along with Boston's foolish law, and it won't hold up to the SCOTUS. If a weapons is too dangerous to be allowed, then police can't have it either. So Boston will lose eventually, on the 14th amendment, if not the 2nd, 4th, or 5th.
There was no due process in the passing of the Boston ban at all, because it is not necessary to defend rights, and is unequal since it does not disarm them from police. It does not even effect slight variants.
As for John Wesley Harding:
{...
He was well known for wildly exaggerating or completely making up stories about his life. He claimed credit for many murders that cannot be corroborated.[4]:10–11
Within a year of his release in 1894, Hardin was killed by John Selman in an El Paso saloon.
...}
So he was taken care of by armed civilians, not the government.
Yes, and this wanton killing is why Dallas had the no firearms in the city limit streets and businesses and would have tried and convicted him for murder under the same cirumstances. Same goes more many other western towns.
Something can be said when there are too few guns in the innocents hands but there are volumes when there are too many. Even today, in El Paso, you can't have a weapon in a Bar.
I can find no specific references to Dallas, but clearly until 1900, the SCOTUS consistently ruled that city bans on firearms were entirely illegal, including concealed weapons.
I find no exceptions. The Earps in Deadwood were only temporarily confiscating while visiters were drinking.
List of firearm court cases in the United States - Wikipedia
{...
Bliss v. Commonwealth[edit]
Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822, Ky.)[12] addressed the right to bear arms pursuant to Art. 10, Sec. 23 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799):[13] "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned." This was interpreted to include the right to carry a concealed sword in a cane. Bliss has been described as about "a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons [that] was violative of the Second Amendment."[14] Others, however, have seen no conflict with the Second Amendment by the Commonwealth of Kentucky's statute under consideration in Bliss since "The Kentucky law was aimed at concealed weapons. No one saw any conflict with the Second Amendment. As a matter of fact, most of the few people who considered the question at all believed amendments to the U.S. Constitution did not apply to state laws."[15]
Bliss stated, "But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution."[12] The "constitution" mentioned in this quote refers to Kentucky's Constitution.[16]
The case prompted outrage in the Kentucky House, all the while recognizing that Section 23 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799) did guarantee individuals the right to bear arms. The Blissruling, to the extent that it dealt with concealed weapons, was overturned by constitutional amendment with Section 26 in Kentucky's Third Constitution (1850) banning the future carrying of concealed weapons, while still asserting that the bearing of arms in defense of themselves and the state was an individual and collective right in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. This recognition, has remained to the present day in the Commonwealth of Kentucky's Fourth Constitution enacted in 1891, in Section 1, Article 7, that guarantees "The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons." As noted in the Northern Kentucky Law Review Second Amendment Symposium: Rights in Conflict in the 1980s, vol. 10, no. 1, 1982, p. 155, "The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."[17][18]
The importance of Bliss is also seen from the defense subsequently given against a murder charge in Kentucky against Mattews Ward, who in 1852 pulled out a concealed pistol and fatally wounded his brother's teacher over an accusation regarding eating chestnuts in class. Ward's defense team consisted of eighteen lawyers, including U.S. Senator John Crittenden, former Governor of Kentucky, and former United States Attorney General. The defense successfully defended Ward in 1854 through an assertion that "a man has a right to carry arms; I am aware of nothing in the laws of God or man, prohibiting it. The Constitution of Kentucky and our Bill of Rights guarantee it. The Legislature once passed an act forbidding it, but it was decided unconstitutional, and overruled by our highest tribunal, the Court of Appeals." As noted by Cornell, "Ward's lawyers took advantage of the doctrine advanced in Bliss and wrapped their client's action under the banner of a constitutional right to bear arms. Ward was acquitted."
...}
And gun control in Tombstone didn't work....as the maimed Earp, and the dead Earp show...
I would say it worked pretty damned well. It would have worked much better if the Earps had adopted the Dallas Marshal's approach and just gunned them down with no warning. But the Earps may have been killers but they weren't cold blooded killers. You are sticking up for outlaws, you know that.
Wrong, the Earps were fired and run out of town.
I don't believe you about Dallas, but have not found anything yet.
only in right wing fantasy would that ever be true.Federal government and the states were never intended to control private firearm ownership. In fact it was supposed to be none of their business in anyway. Hence.... shall not be infringedYou are not reading it in the context of the eraI won't bother taking all that nonsense apart. I'll simply point this out
"This means that the well regulated Militia is formed by the state to guard against the forming of the tyranny of the Federal Government. The problem with this is, as late as 1898, Governors were using their Organized Militia as bully boys to support their Rich Cronies business ventures. In 1898, that happened here. "
So the Constitution gives as one of the purposes and duties of a "Well Regulated Militia" that of putting DOWN insurrections...you acknowledge this and point out several contemporaneous uses (Shay's and the Whiskey Rebellion). But somehow this means the opposite of what it says and how it was used?
You really need to go sit in the corner
The constitution does not at all detail the purpose, need, etc., of militias.
ALL the federal constitution would have jurisdiction over or need to point out would be the rare emergency when the federal government would need and be able to draw on the militias.
That is NOT at all the main point of the militias.
And being able to put down immoral insurrections does not at all imply all insurrections are immoral or should be put down.
Clearly the founders implemented a good insurrection and were VERY fond of the ability to commit insurrections.
They would NEVER have at all implied anything that would prevent needed insurrections, and in fact verbally and in writing said they though insurrections would likely be necessary on a semi regular basis.
And NO, militias are NOT formed by the states alone. They are individual, local, and state. Most militias were private.
Clearly the 2nd amendment implies it is the PEOPLE themselves who form well regulated militias, not states.
The original intent was for the State to control the Militias and the total of all of the Militias to outnumber the total number of Federal Troops allowed by law. Each state did not have to have a larger number but the combined number of all the states had to be a larger number than the legal Federal troops. The Federal Troops were limited to 75,000 for many decades. With the Indian Wars taking up so many of that Federal Total, this gave the Confederates a decided advantage at first. Had it not been for the States Militias being called up, the Confederates would have marched in and taken DC. In those days, it was traditional when you took the other guys capital city the war ended much like taking Richmond ended the Civil War the other direction.
When the 2nd amendment reads Organized Militia, by tradition and wordage, it means the State Controlled Militia not a bunch of dudes wearing pickle suits and waving a bunch of guns while running around the woods.
I am reading it EXACTLY in context for the Era. The little private armies running around in the woods were never intended to try and overthrow the Governments. The Protections in that context was left to the States, not the individual. It still is.
Na, not reallyFederal government and the states were never intended to control private firearm ownership. In fact it was supposed to be none of their business in anyway. Hence.... shall not be infringedYou are not reading it in the context of the eraThe constitution does not at all detail the purpose, need, etc., of militias.
ALL the federal constitution would have jurisdiction over or need to point out would be the rare emergency when the federal government would need and be able to draw on the militias.
That is NOT at all the main point of the militias.
And being able to put down immoral insurrections does not at all imply all insurrections are immoral or should be put down.
Clearly the founders implemented a good insurrection and were VERY fond of the ability to commit insurrections.
They would NEVER have at all implied anything that would prevent needed insurrections, and in fact verbally and in writing said they though insurrections would likely be necessary on a semi regular basis.
And NO, militias are NOT formed by the states alone. They are individual, local, and state. Most militias were private.
Clearly the 2nd amendment implies it is the PEOPLE themselves who form well regulated militias, not states.
The original intent was for the State to control the Militias and the total of all of the Militias to outnumber the total number of Federal Troops allowed by law. Each state did not have to have a larger number but the combined number of all the states had to be a larger number than the legal Federal troops. The Federal Troops were limited to 75,000 for many decades. With the Indian Wars taking up so many of that Federal Total, this gave the Confederates a decided advantage at first. Had it not been for the States Militias being called up, the Confederates would have marched in and taken DC. In those days, it was traditional when you took the other guys capital city the war ended much like taking Richmond ended the Civil War the other direction.
When the 2nd amendment reads Organized Militia, by tradition and wordage, it means the State Controlled Militia not a bunch of dudes wearing pickle suits and waving a bunch of guns while running around the woods.
I am reading it EXACTLY in context for the Era. The little private armies running around in the woods were never intended to try and overthrow the Governments. The Protections in that context was left to the States, not the individual. It still is.
Read the rest of the 2nd amendment. It limits the Feds, not the States. Unless you add in the Interstate Public Safety issue then it can become a Federal Issue. I sometimes question the 1934 Firearms act myself. It all depends on the thought behind it. Was it done for Gun Regulation or was it done as an Interstate Public Safety Issue. Now, that is a fight in court I would like to see. As for the States, they have every right to limit firearms and the Courts have agreed. Well at least for the last 100 years anyway.
